31 73. In light of a comprehensive perspective given the gravity and continued or permanent nature of the act of enforced disappearance of persons, the act is maintained while the whereabouts of the disappeared person remain unknown and identity is not ascertained. 74. The enforced disappearance of persons constitutes a multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention, thereby placing the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, implying other related violations, particularly serious when said harm forms part of a systematic pattern or practice which is applied or tolerated by the State. 75 75. The practice of enforced disappearance of persons constitutes an inexcusable abandonment of the essential principles on which the Inter-American System of Human Rights is founded, 76 and whose prohibition has reached the character of jus cogens. 77 76. Pursuant to Article I, subparagraphs a) and b), of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, the States Parties undertake to not practice or tolerate the enforced disappearance of persons under any circumstance and to punish those responsible within the realm of their jurisdiction; this is in accordance with the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the rights included in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, that which, as established by this Court, can be fulfilled in various manners, in light of the specific right the State to guarantee and of the specific needs of protection.78 77. The State’s preventive obligations encompass all those judicial, political, administrative, and cultural measures that promote and safeguard human rights, 79 and as such, the deprivation of liberty in legally recognized centers and the existence of registries within said centers constitutes fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against enforced disappearance, and in contrario sensu, the operation of clandestine centers constitutes per se a violation of the obligation to guarantee, for directly assaulting the right to personal liberty, to personal integrity, to life, 80 and to juridical personality. 81                                                          75 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 74, para. 139, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 59. 76 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 158; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 86, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 61. 77 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 84; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 86, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 61. 78 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre, supra note 14, paras. 111 and 113; Case of Anzualdo Castro supra note 75, para. 62, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 74, para. 142. 79 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 175; Case of González et al.s (“Campo Algodonero”) V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 252, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 63. 80 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 75, para. 63, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 63. In the same sense, Cf. Article XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 81 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 63.